TranceAddict Forums (www.tranceaddict.com/forums)
- Political Discussion / Debate
-- What now for the Chickenhawks and Warmongers
Pages (2): [1] 2 »

What now for the Chickenhawks and Warmongers

(MSNBC)- Defying U.N., Iran to proceed with nuke plans - http://msnbc.msn.com/id/6012416/

VIENNA, Austria - President Mohammad Khatami said Tuesday that Iran will continue its nuclear program even if that means ending inspections by the U.N. nuclear monitoring agency. Separately, an Iranian scientist said the country has begun tests that will produce a large amount of material for nuclear centrifuges.

�We�ve made our choice," Khatami told a military parade in Tehran. "Yes to peaceful nuclear technology, no to atomic weapons.�

He added that Iran would continue along that path "even if it leads to an end to international supervision� of our nuclear activities.

The U.N. watchdog, International Atomic Energy Agency, has demanded that Iran freeze uranium enrichment and answer all questions about its nuclear activities within two months.

Failure to do so could lead the IAEA to refer Iran to the U.N. Security Council, which could impose sanctions on the country.

Enriching uranium
In Vienna, Gholamreza Aghazadeh, the head of Iran's Atomic Energy Organization, told reporters that Iran had begun converting 37 tons of raw uranium into material which is fuel for nuclear centrifuges -- the machines that enrich uranium.

Iran insists it needs enrichment to generate power, but the process can also be used to create nuclear weapons.

One nuclear expert has said that, if enriched, the 37 tons would be enough material for five nuclear weapons.

"Some of the amount of the 37 tones has been used. The tests have been successful but these tests have to be continued using the rest of the material," said Aghazadeh, who is attending a general conference of the IAEA.

Iran had told the IAEA a few weeks ago it intended to run the tests. However, the announcement came after the IAEA board of governors passed a resolution on Saturday calling on Iran to halt all activities linked to uranium enrichment.

On Sunday, Iran denounced as the U.N. agency's demands as �illegal."

Hasan Rowhani, Iran�s top nuclear negotiator, also said his country would limit its cooperation with the IAEA if the watchdog refers Iran to the U.N. Security Council for possible sanctions.

Pressure put on Iran
Iran is not prohibited from enrichment under its obligations to the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty. But it has for months faced international pressure to suspend such activities as a good-faith gesture.

The United States insists the 35-member board must refer Iran to the Security Council when it meets again on Nov. 25 if Tehran doesn�t comply.

++++++ What now for the neocon hawks, Iran's intent is pretty clear, their government is repressive, they have links to terrorists, they are most certainly going to build a nuke. Its all a matter of time before Iran has a nuclear weapon. Yet ironically sanctions the chickenhawks claimed failed in Iraq, so what makes them believe it will work in Iran. Most certainly even if sanctions are in place Iran will continue to proceed with their nuclear program, posing a threat to Israel that Saddam could only dream of, oh and by the way we still have North Korea. So will the globocops in Washington try to kick more ass or sit on theirs. The answer is pretty clear. Please Reps. what is the next step of action for these situations.

let them all build nuclear weapons let them blow each other up then maybe finally after they're all dead there will be peace in the middle east. it'll be radio active peace but still peace

The way you talk makes it seem as though talking is an option. I'd like to know what talking will solve in this situation.

I don't think anyone should help them build non nuclear reactors or appease them in any way. That is basically nuclear blackmail like what the North Koreans are doing right now with the Light Water Reactors.

Iran can't be attacked militarily from what I have seen as their nuclear capabilities appear to be spread all around the country and underground, it would be tough to find it all. The country also is much more mountainous than Iraq so sending in forces would be tough as they are stronger than Iraq militarily yet have the mountains of an afghanistan.

Honestly what can the UN realistically do. They really have no power. They can tell a country to do something, the country either has the right to say yes or no and then the UN perhaps votes to engage in sanctions which really doesn't mean much. Iran will still be funding its projects sanctions or not. I do find it humorous that Iran keeps talking about the uranium being used only for electricity yet they secretly produced it for some 18 years without telling anyone in the world. When you are doing something secretly for such a period of time it most likely isn't for such a noble purpose.

As far as I see it there realy is no way of dealing with this situation. Just like India, Pakistan, and probably soon North Korea, we are going to have to live with Iran as a nuclear threat. I don't think the biggest threat is them having a nuclear weapon as in today's world you really can't use one against another country without either being destroyed in kind from the same weapon or being totally isolated from the entire world. The real threat is the type of government they have, known terrorists in their country, and the spreading of knowledge, technology, and resources to terrorists who don't have to worry about retaliation like a country does.

Re: What now for the Chickenhaws and Warmongers

quote:

Originally posted by NYCTrancefan Please Reps. what is the next step of action for these situations.

what would you have us do?

Re: Re: What now for the Chickenhaws and Warmongers

quote:

Originally posted by Q5echo what would you have us do?

That's not his problem. He's there to complain about problems and offer no viable solutions. The solution is someone else's responsibility.

Re: Re: Re: What now for the Chickenhaws and Warmongers

quote:

Originally posted by Shakka That's not his problem. He's there to complain about problems and offer no viable solutions. The solution is someone else's responsibility.

I ask you the question about what is going to be done about these nations based on the Bush doctrine and the response of you guys are to ask me what would I do. I suppose it finally passed through the heads of many that using the military to try and solve problems only goes so far. North Korea is no less a threat than Iraq, Iran is no less a threat than Iraq yet I still don't see the chickenhaws strutting their stuff any longer. Mabye they learned something from Iraq. While it may be foreign language to some in this forum, I tend to believe in an approach of getting many nations on your side and being perceived as the good guy so as to increase the pressure on those you are battling against, ala the Cold War. I repeat we must have nations on our side in these conflicts and the way to do that is through respect, fairness and a sense of shared commitment to achieving a secured world. We didn't do it alone or with few in the Cold War and neither will we in the current world of rampant American hatred of our policies under the Bush administration.

Even if the Bush admin. wanted to go into Iran and North Korea they couldn't for obvious reasons as Iraq is showing. Then yet again Iraq may just be a figment of my imagination since I'm only dwelling on the lack of security, kidnappings, murder, bombings, etc other than that though its ok I ask once again how will they deal with Iran and North Korea Republicans since you support the Bush policy in Iraq as is right now, please answer this question instead of spinning.

Why is it we? Maybe it should be the other countries in the region who need to step up this time, after all Iran is in THEIR part of the world. If they didn't like how the US handled Iraq perhaps they have a better opinion on how to solve the Iran problem.

quote:

Originally posted by BadBadNeil Why is it we? Maybe it should be the other countries in the region who need to step up this time, after all Iran is in THEIR part of the world. If they didn't like how the US handled Iraq perhaps they have a better opinion on how to solve the Iran problem.

Hah! That has been my point all along, the problem is that America under George W. Bush has decided to be the leader in dealing with all of these conflicts, thereby being percieved as the main antagonists or protagonists depending on your P.O.V. in Iran and North Korea. After Iraq where can we go from there in handling these other two nations. America had always been viewed in a positive light, usually, so we were able to be a vision of justice and preserving freedom and democratic ideals for other nations. Now every ragtag of a third world dictator blames America for their problems and moreover when we speak where is the crediblity in espousing those values after events in Iraq.

I heard George W. Bush before the U.N. speaking about democracies, liberties and the free world must stand up to evil. How many outside of America you think cared to hear his words, much less heed them. While half of America may like Bush, the wider world in which America is viewed every step of the way has a different vision of him, guess that doesn't matter though.

quote:

Originally posted by NYCTrancefan America had always been viewed in a positive light, usually, so we were able to be a vision of justice and preserving freedom and democratic ideals for other nations.

If America has always been viewed positively until the arrival of G.W. Bush, then why did Islamic Extremists attack and kill 3,000 on 9/11/01? Because they like us so much?

quote:

Originally posted by NYCTrancefan Hah! That has been my point all along, the problem is that America under George W. Bush has decided to be the leader in dealing with all of these conflicts, thereby being percieved as the main antagonists or protagonists depending on your P.O.V. in Iran and North Korea. After Iraq where can we go from there in handling these other two nations. America had always been viewed in a positive light, usually, so we were able to be a vision of justice and preserving freedom and democratic ideals for other nations. Now every ragtag of a third world dictator blames America for their problems and moreover when we speak where is the crediblity in espousing those values after events in Iraq. I heard George W. Bush before the U.N. speaking about democracies, liberties and the free world must stand up to evil. How many outside of America you think cared to hear his words, much less heed them. While half of America may like Bush, the wider world in which America is viewed every step of the way has a different vision of him, guess that doesn't matter though.

Hah! did you get the answer you were looking for?

are you sure you not letting your personal hatred for Bush cloud your judgement toward enabling the free world to stand up against oppression? cause you know, and i think you would agree, that words only mean so much. and that applies to Bush too.

why do think that Germany France and Britain are spearheading the diplomacy regarding Irans nuclear aspirations?

there have been no indications of inducing the Bush Doctrine towards Iran or N.Korea. i have no doubt that there are policies already in place that we do not know about ready to be enacted upon certain political and military thresholds.

quote:

Originally posted by BadBadNeil As far as I see it there realy is no way of dealing with this situation. Just like India, Pakistan, and probably soon North Korea, we are going to have to live with Iran as a nuclear threat. I don't think the biggest threat is them having a nuclear weapon as in today's world you really can't use one against another country without either being destroyed in kind from the same weapon or being totally isolated from the entire world. The real threat is the type of government they have, known terrorists in their country, and the spreading of knowledge, technology, and resources to terrorists who don't have to worry about retaliation like a country does.

I thought this was the most intelligent thing I've read all day, but then I read this:

quote:

Originally posted by NYCTrancefan While it may be foreign language to some in this forum, I tend to believe in an approach of getting many nations on your side and being perceived as the good guy so as to increase the pressure on those you are battling against, ala the Cold War. I repeat we must have nations on our side in these conflicts and the way to do that is through respect, fairness and a sense of shared commitment to achieving a secured world. We didn't do it alone or with few in the Cold War and neither will we in the current world of rampant American hatred of our policies under the Bush administration.

To add to this answer, I would say that you (the US) cannot do much about the current anti-US feeling in the middle east. You need to gradually build up loads of good-will, while attempting to do damage control on the nukes-in-the-hands-of-terrorists issue. In some decades you may then reach a position where a nuclear bomb owned by Iran is as harmless as one owned by France or Britain.

quote:

Originally posted by Shakka If America has always been viewed positively until the arrival of G.W. Bush, then why did Islamic Extremists attack and kill 3,000 on 9/11/01? Because they like us so much?

Unless you feel the whole world are terrorists then you would realize the innacuracy in your response. I used the term usually, meaning among individuals who wouldn't resort to cutting off the heads of other human beings, blowing up innocent civilians, etc. This isn't about the terrorist that I was referencing under any circumstance but individuals who looked towards the United States as a beacon of hope and positive leadership, once again as in the Cold War.

quote:

Originally posted by NYCTrancefan Unless you feel the whole world are terrorists then you would realize the innacuracy in your response. I used the term usually, meaning among individuals who wouldn't resort to cutting off the heads of other human beings, blowing up innocent civilians, etc. This isn't about the terrorist that I was referencing under any circumstance but individuals who looked towards the United States as a beacon of hope and positive leadership, once again as in the Cold War.

Actually, you said "always" and "usually" in the same sentence. I dare say you said "usually" precisely so you would have an out when you were called on it.

quote:

Originally posted by Q5echo Hah! did you get the answer you were looking for? are you sure you not letting your personal hatred for Bush cloud your judgement toward enabling the free world to stand up against oppression? cause you know, and i think you would agree, that words only mean so much. and that applies to Bush too. why do think that Germany France and Britain are spearheading the diplomacy regarding Irans nuclear aspirations? there have been no indications of inducing the Bush Doctrine towards Iran or N.Korea. i have no doubt that there are policies already in place that we do not know about ready to be enacted upon certain political and military thresholds.

Certainly my views are going to be influenced by the way I feel about the Bush administration, with that said I would have much more respect for this president and current administration if I felt he was pursuing the right path. It makes me sick to see young men still being killed in Iraq on a daily basis after he said "Mission Accomplished" That behavior was arrogance personified.

If America has to continue in Iraq at this rate for who knows how long where does that leave us. There simply has to be a stronger involvement of more nations in Iraq and other world leaders simply do not want to get involved in that task, especially with the current U.S. administration, so we will continue to bear the high cost in lives and fiscally. Even with Kerry I don't think troops will be sent by France, Germany, or Muslim nations but there must be a greater commitment of other nations to helping out and I don't know if George W. Bush can accomplish that based on his overall foreign policy when it comes to Iraq.

quote:

Originally posted by Shakka Actually, you said "always" and "usually" in the same sentence. I dare say you said "usually" precisely so you would have an out when you were called on it.

An out, it is simply a recognition that the U.S. in the past supported many dictatorships and crony governments around the globe. So our actions weren't squeaky clean. However you cannot deny that this is perhaps the most despised administration. Whatever may have happened in the past, the U.S. is certainly not viewed favorably now, but like I stated if you are American and don't travel elsewhere in the world then it doesn't really matter. I love this nation and what it stands for, under Bush I cannot say the same when it comes to policies. Altruism is certainly not a hallmark of Bush policy.

quote:

Originally posted by NYCTrancefan An out, it is simply a recognition that the U.S. in the past supported many dictatorships and crony governments around the globe. So our actions weren't squeaky clean. However you cannot deny that this is perhaps the most despised administration. Whatever may have happened in the past, the U.S. is certainly not viewed favorably now, but like I stated if you are American and don't travel elsewhere in the world then it doesn't really matter. I love this nation and what it stands for, under Bush I cannot say the same when it comes to policies. Altruism is certainly not a hallmark of Bush policy.

Historically, some of the most "despised" administrations have been some of the most effective ones, and vice versa. Not to mention that the right decision is not always the most popular one and is certainly not always the easiest one. I sincerely believe that with historical perspective(maybe 20 years from now), Bush will get a favorable review. The president is supposed to lead, not just follow popular opinion.

quote:

Originally posted by NYCTrancefan Altruism is certainly not a hallmark of Bush policy.

I've said it many times before, and I'll say it again: Altruism is a crime against humanity. It goes in direct opposition with the right of self-determination. I choose freedom, you choose veiled socialism.

quote:

Originally posted by Shakka I've said it many times before, and I'll say it again: Altruism is a crime against humanity. It goes in direct opposition with the right of self-determination. I choose freedom, you choose veiled socialism.

And might I ask what are your concepts of freedom, why should young American blood be shed in Iraq for the freedom of Iraqis as is now purported by the Bush administration, since the WMD logic has fallen flat on its face. Shouldn't Iraqis be fighting for Iraqi freedom tooth and nail. Let's be honest Iraq is a poorly managed effort of International power politics by the Bush administration. We can speak of all the freedoms we want but people exist in different cultures, customs, and overall societies than our's or Western European.

Since when is the concern for others, not conducting one's self in a manner of utter avarice and having a sense of care in dealing with those less fortunate veiled socialism, I challenge you to demonstrate to me how altruism goes against self determination. From my take in order for one to even be altruistic they have to have the option of self determination available to them in the first place, I must be missing something.

quote:

Originally posted by NYCTrancefan And might I ask what are your concepts of freedom, why should young American blood be shed in Iraq for the freedom of Iraqis as is now purported by the Bush administration, since the WMD logic has fallen flat on its face. Shouldn't Iraqis be fighting for Iraqi freedom tooth and nail. Let's be honest Iraq is a poorly managed effort of International power politics by the Bush administration. We can speak of all the freedoms we want but people exist in different cultures, customs, and overall societies than our's or Western European. Since when is the concern for others, not conducting one's self in a manner of utter avarice and having a sense of care in dealing with those less fortunate veiled socialism, I challenge you to demonstrate to me how altruism goes against self determination. From my take in order for one to even be altruistic they have to have the option of self determination available to them in the first place, I must be missing something.

Because altruism, by definition, places the needs and desires of all above the needs and desires of the individual. In essence, altruism in it's purest form, demands utter slavery and self-sacrifice by the individual in the name of some intangible "greater good". It's fine for society to demand all it wants from me, but it's somehow a crime for me to demand something I need and want from that very society. My death somehow is supposed to benefit the whole? Give me a break. I am here on this earth by chance, and I will make the most that I can for myself based on my rational mental capacity. I will not be a slave to society, which, IMO, is what socialism is preaching in its core philosophy.

Are you not the slightest bit concerned about where Iraqi WMD's are? They were there in 1998--there is documented proof of that, not to mention mass graves full of evidence. Simply because they have not all been tracked down yet(even though some HAVE been found, just not the "stockpiles" that you demand), doesn't mean they never existed, and certainly doesn't mean that other motivations for war are somehow less noble or justifiable. I understand, you think the world is better off with a ruthless dictator in power.

quote:

Originally posted by Shakka Because altruism, by definition, places the needs and desires of all above the needs and desires of the individual. In essence, altruism in it's purest form, demands utter slavery and self-sacrifice by the individual in the name of some intangible "greater good". It's fine for society to demand all it wants from me, but it's somehow a crime for me to demand something I need and want from that very society. My death somehow is supposed to benefit the whole? Give me a break. I am here on this earth by chance, and I will make the most that I can for myself based on my rational mental capacity. I will not be a slave to society, which, IMO, is what socialism is preaching in its core philosophy. Are you not the slightest bit concerned about where Iraqi WMD's are? They were there in 1998--there is documented proof of that, not to mention mass graves full of evidence. Simply because they have not all been tracked down yet(even though some HAVE been found, just not the "stockpiles" that you demand), doesn't mean they never existed, and certainly doesn't mean that other motivations for war are somehow less noble or justifiable. I understand, you think the world is better off with a ruthless dictator in power.

Shakka you have set yourself up for a poignant rebuttal and I quote "In essence, altruism in it's purest form, demands utter slavery and self-sacrifice by the individual in the name of some intangible "greater good". Can you tell me what is taking place in Iraq with U.S. soldiers sacrificing themselves there on a daily basis. Can't that be classified as an altruistic task if they are fighting for "Iraqi freedom and democracy." What is it to them if Iraq is free, would they not be better served to be protecting America on the homefront.

On the WMD subject I guess they are hidden in Syria, transported by trucks before the war, that must be why all the Iraqi scientists are spilling the goods on their locations Last off you have painted me as liberal, socialist supporting, and someone who has no quarems with a dictator in power I respond by saying for someone who views altruism as a morbid philosphy of social blight, you sure seem to endorse the concepts of "freedom and democracy in Iraq" as claimed by the Bush administration at the expense of American lives being sacrificed in a far off land, what would you term that.

quote:

Originally posted by NYCTrancefan Shakka you have set yourself up for a poignant rebuttal and I quote "In essence, altruism in it's purest form, demands utter slavery and self-sacrifice by the individual in the name of some intangible "greater good". Can you tell me what is taking place in Iraq with U.S. soldiers sacrificing themselves there on a daily basis. Can't that be classified as an altruistic task if they are fighting for "Iraqi freedom and democracy." What is it to them if Iraq is free, would they not be better served to be protecting America on the homefront.

I am aware of this contradiction--it's an internal struggle. I support the primary reason we are there, which is a smaller part of the larger war on terrorism, and therefore the protection of our nation and our interests. The fact that 30 million people get to experience independence and freedom in the end is icing on the cake for me.

quote:

On the WMD subject I guess they are hidden in Syria, transported by trucks before the war, that must be why all the Iraqi scientists are spilling the goods on their locations Last off you have painted me as liberal, socialist supporting, and someone who has no qualms with a dictator in power I respond by saying for someone who views altruism as a morbid philosphy of social blight, you sure seem to endorse the concepts of "freedom and democracy in Iraq" as claimed by the Bush administration at the expense of American lives being sacrificed in a far off land, what would you term that.

So then, the WMD rationale isn't completely off-base, as you adamantly claim ad-nauseum. The fact that they were moved, doesn't exactly exonerate Saddam Hussein, nor does it debunk the claim that there are WMD's, as you just admitted that they still exist. The fact that we've found small amounts of them substantiates my claim. Nor does the fact that Saddam strategically moved them make him any less of a threat. Nor does it take away from the justification of being there, particularly when it was the stated policy of the United States since 1998 that regime change in Iraq was official policy.

But since we're talking about war--what does a guy like John Kerry bring to the table? He has said he voted for it, then voted against it, then said that knowing what he knows now, he still would've gone in, and then most recently saying that we should've never gone there. I'd prefer a guy like Bush who at least sticks to one policy without changing his mind on a whim to try to sway the polls in his favor.

In any event, with respect to your comment about sacrificing people in far off lands for freedom, blah blah blah...an important thing to remember is that everyone in the U.S. military VOLUNTEERED for service. Whether they admit it or not, they put themselves in that position. They made the decision on their own. Most of them find great honor in volunteer service, and I in turn believe them to be among the most honorable people in our country. I hardly consider them altruists. They choose self-sacrifice whereas an altruistic society demands it.

Re: Re: What now for the Chickenhaws and Warmongers

quote:

Originally posted by Q5echo what would you have us do?

Well, what could we have done instead.. funny enough, Bush has not regreted the war on Iraq in any way, having in mind all the reports given to him on the various issues.

We could go and say..

Intelligence and $$$ was diverted tours Iraq, making the efforts of Al Quaida and recruiting a go go ..

Its proven that the War in Iraq was a mistake ( IM going by the allegations that the President and Colin Powell gave to the UN and the Nation.. there was Weapons Of Mass Destruction.. Where? ) ..

Was Saddam and inminent threat?!?!.. why did we go to Iraq without finishing with the one war that the world supported US with, which was cathing the terrorists, not invading other countries.

So Ok.. We are in Iraq, theres no choice but to stay, but it is honest for one to say that we have created a bowl of terrorist in Iraq, in other words, we have invited terrorists from all parts, extremists and such, to make a country of nightmares, killings, behadings and such.

Now, having all that in mind.. lets go back to the beginning.

If Bush would have listened, oor, at least, have founded the efforts and intelligence to focus on mr Bin Laden instead, we may have allready have the guy, or, we may have been able to destroy Al Quaeda in great part, and then deal with the TRUE threats in the world, Iran and North Korea, which HAVE been proven to be creating, or posses weapons of mass destruction.

I think it is honest for anyone to admit many of this points, instead of blindly go and just say oh.. Iraq War, we are winning, there is progress.. BS!

quote:

Originally posted by Shakka So then, the WMD rationale isn't completely off-base, as you adamantly claim ad-nauseum. The fact that they were moved, doesn't exactly exonerate Saddam Hussein, nor does it debunk the claim that there are WMD's, as you just admitted that they still exist. The fact that we've found small amounts of them substantiates my claim. Nor does the fact that Saddam strategically moved them make him any less of a threat. Nor does it take away from the justification of being there, particularly when it was the stated policy of the United States since 1998 that regime change in Iraq was official policy. But since we're talking about war--what does a guy like John Kerry bring to the table? He has said he voted for it, then voted against it, then said that knowing what he knows now, he still would've gone in, and then most recently saying that we should've never gone there. I'd prefer a guy like Bush who at least sticks to one policy without changing his mind on a whim to try to sway the polls in his favor. In any event, with respect to your comment about sacrificing people in far off lands for freedom, blah blah blah...an important thing to remember is that everyone in the U.S. military VOLUNTEERED for service. Whether they admit it or not, they put themselves in that position, which makes them honorable indeed. I hardly consider them altruists. They choose self-sacrifice. An altruistic society demands it.

First off I was being sarcastic as you can see by the grin in my commentary about the WMDs being moved to Syria. On what does John Kerry bring, he brings the concept of getting more nations involved in Iraq so that we are not left footing the bill for this process, he brings a new administration that isn't tainted by a sense of arrogance and diplomatic bungling in dealing with our allies in regions throughtout the globe, he brings a common sense approach that America must ideologically, socially and politically separate the terrorists from the social cucoons in which they ferment through implementing sound American foreign policy that garners the support of the common people to aspire to look at America as a nation of proud ideals. If terrorism is a global threat then let us treat it as such, not the I lead and you follow mentality as prescribed by G.W. Bush so often.

Those in the military chose self-sacrifice to defend their nation, I am yet to see what is the threat that Iraq posed to the United States of America that North Korea or Iran doesn't. Would you choose self sacrifice for Iraqi freedom, I know I wouldn't. Every man must fight for his own freedoms, so thereby I wonder why the Iraqi security forces disappear whenever a conflict starts while Americans pay the price. Until WMDs are found in Iraq, which I hold little hope of ever happening, I view this war as an effort of sheer foolhardiness by this administration.

Of course there are terrorists in Iraq now, the terrorists have now found a new pilgramage of jihad in Iraq and they will keep coming as long as we are there no matter how many we kill. The mentality of hatred against America is so rife in that region that there is no shortage of "wannabe holy warriors" entering Iraqi cities. If Iraq didn't have terrorists before they certainly do now. As I type this another American has had his head chopped off by individuals that the U.S. cannot even find after all these months of Zarqawi in Iraq. Unbelievable. My beef lies in what G.W. Bush has failed to bring to Iraq, despite his delusional claims on a daily basis. We'll stay in Iraq and keep fighting this by ourselves and the Brits to a much lesser extent for who knows how many years to come, what a nice thought.

quote:

Originally posted by NYCTrancefan First off I was being sarcastic as you can see by the grin in my commentary about the WMDs being moved to Syria. On what does John Kerry bring, he brings the concept of getting more nations involved in Iraq so that we are not left footing the bill for this process,

Yes because Germany France and Russia will jump in joy when Bush is gone and will say ,'' YAY! lets send our soldiers to go die instead of the U.S. because Kerry knows what to do...."

Fact of the matter is Kerry reveiled he will pull out troops as soon as next march and completely in 4 yrs? So Kerry wants to basically change the skin color of the soldiers dieing in IRAQ?

Its much easier said than done ...

quote:

Originally posted by speedracer_mec Yes because Germany France and Russia will jump in joy when Bush is gone and will say ,'' YAY! lets send our soldiers to go die instead of the U.S. because Kerry knows what to do...." Fact of the matter is Kerry reveiled he will pull out troops as soon as next march and completely in 4 yrs? So Kerry wants to basically change the skin color of the soldiers dieing in IRAQ? Its much easier said than done ...

Please read my statement correctly, I asserted that "He brings the concept of getting more nations involved in Iraq so that we are not left footing the bill for this process". I never asserted that troops would be sent into Iraq by any nation capable of doing so if John Kerry is elected. You completely misinterpreted my statement, there are other ways that nations can be involved and I see no reason why France or Germany would send troops to Iraq after being ridiculed by the Secretary of Defense and being called every name under the sun. I certainly wouldn't send troops if I was the leader of any of those nations.

Powered by: vBulletin
Copyright © 2000-2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.